Hutchinson and Blotchy

[Darryl Kenyon]

Hi Wick and SD
In reply to your posts it doesn't matter if Sarah Lewis's story wasn't published much , if at all before Hutch came forward. As before, news of the murder would have spread through the district like wildfire. And stories told, be they fabrications, half truths or genuine honesty would have abounded the area.
All Sarah Lewis had to do was tell her best mate Mrs Smith who then told her neighbour Joe Bloggs etc that she saw a man standing outside Crossingham's who may have witnessed more than her. The same goes with Mrs Keyler relating Sarah's story, perhaps more so since she lived in the court.
George could easily have picked up on this. He may have not have resided at The Victoria home regularly [ though I have to say I am not convinced by your argument in post 177 Wick ], but, by his own admission he knew Mary and occasionally gave her a shilling. Which suggests to me he knew those streets and possibly other people in Millers Court itself.
As for being paid five times his salary, again I am not convinced by your argument Wick, that the newspaper meant the artist . I feel it is more likely that it was Hutch they were referring to and he told the Police his usual salary if he wasn't unemployed.
I also believe that Abberline initially believed Hutch because his story initially checked out. IE He sent a constable over to the Victoria home to verify that Hutch did indeed stop there but didn't arrive back on time on the fateful night. Perhaps someone verified the Romford side of it as well ?
What did Hutch have to lose he was unemployed and living day to day ? particularity if he had an alibi for one or more of the other murders.
These were very desperate times. If he got a few shillings and a couple of hot meals off the police while they were ferrying him around the district. Perhaps he saw it as a chance worth taking.
Regards Darryl

[Wickerman]

"More likely speaks" you're splitting every hair you can yet you or no one really knows. The preponderance of the evidence however says the article is of Hutchinson.

The Hutchinson story was fully covered 4 days previous in the same newspaper, and he was named. This unnamed person was someone else.

[Wickerman]

Those who may have not read the original story published by this Wheeling Register, 15 Nov.
may like to read this.
As can be seen Hutchinson is well identified by name.





For the next article 4 days later to refer to him as "Some clever individual", makes no sense at all.
The best guess, knowing police are always reluctant to hand out names is, the subsequent article dated 19th Nov. came from the police. And we know Hutchinson was a laborer, not on salary. An artist would draw a salary from his business.

[Sunny Delight]

Hi Wick and SD
In reply to your posts it doesn't matter if Sarah Lewis's story wasn't published much , if at all before Hutch came forward. As before, news of the murder would have spread through the district like wildfire. And stories told, be they fabrications, half truths or genuine honesty would have abounded the area.
All Sarah Lewis had to do was tell her best mate Mrs Smith who then told her neighbour Joe Bloggs etc that she saw a man standing outside Crossingham's who may have witnessed more than her. The same goes with Mrs Keyler relating Sarah's story, perhaps more so since she lived in the court.
George could easily have picked up on this. He may have not have resided at The Victoria home regularly [ though I have to say I am not convinced by your argument in post 177 Wick ], but, by his own admission he knew Mary and occasionally gave her a shilling. Which suggests to me he knew those streets and possibly other people in Millers Court itself.
As for being paid five times his salary, again I am not convinced by your argument Wick, that the newspaper meant the artist . I feel it is more likely that it was Hutch they were referring to and he told the Police his usual salary if he wasn't unemployed.
I also believe that Abberline initially believed Hutch because his story initially checked out. IE He sent a constable over to the Victoria home to verify that Hutch did indeed stop there but didn't arrive back on time on the fateful night. Perhaps someone verified the Romford side of it as well ?
What did Hutch have to lose he was unemployed and living day to day ? particularity if he had an alibi for one or more of the other murders.
These were very desperate times. If he got a few shillings and a couple of hot meals off the police while they were ferrying him around the district. Perhaps he saw it as a chance worth taking.
Regards Darryl

There was no guarantee the Police would buy his story. The thing is hearing the story through the grapevine and using it to gain notoriety cannot be disproved because AK man was never found. It can't be refuted but I find it an almost laughable suggestion that as the Inquest finished that day and stories began to circulate George Hutchinson sat and thought, I know- I will go to the Police and say I am the man who they say was loitering, I need a description of someone to be seen with Mary Kelly. I know- I will make up a well dressed man sporting some fine accessories. Then the Police might believe me and I will get a few shillings for my trouble when they ask me to look for him hopefully. It defies logic and stretches credibility to the limit or even beyond. He came up with all this within a few hours at most of any stories coming out.

[Sunny Delight]

Yes, no debate here, the sequence I posted was not opinion, it was directly from the reports. Just the same as above.

The only speculation was what were the actual words used in the question? (ie; "was there anyone else in the street?").

- It is a fact Lewis was first asked about seeing the man opposite the court, that is why she was called to testify.
But, she says she only saw him as she entered the passage (reached the court).
Therefore, the next question is backtracking, in other words - 'was there anyone else in the street' as you approached the passage? (ie, before you noticed the man opposite).

That is the key to understanding her role.

She did not see him as she walked along Dorset St. heading for the Court, only this couple - further ahead.

Once the couple turned up the passage, Lewis, following on behind eventually reached the same point, to enter the passage, and then and only then did she notice this man opposite.

Anyway, if you understand the sequence that I see evolving, you might see why I say the actual timing (the 'times' estimated by Lewis & Hutch) is not relevant.
We have had debates on 'Timing' in the Eddowes case, in the Chapman case, and more so in the Stride case.
One thing we have learned, the stated times are not reliable. We must pay more attention to the sequence of events.

We have no evidence she was asked specifically about the man opposite the Court first. It is merely that he is probably the most significant. It seems she was asked did she see anyone in Dorset Street to which she replied yes and describes a man standing opposite the Court who she saw as she reached there. It follows that they being asked was there anyone else in the street she says a young man and a woman passed by or were further on.

It doesn't make any sense for Lewis to resort back to the start of her entrance to the street and say that further on from her there was a man and woman. It has to be in relation to her reaching the Court. She noticed Hutchinson and there was a man and woman further on. They are not relevant though as they are further down Dorset Street. The man loitering though is seemingly very significant. I can only conclude that the newspaper reports saying a man and woman went up the Court are wrong. Any man entering Millers Court at that time with an unidentified woman would have been seen as absolutely critical evidence. Yet Lewis doesn't mention it to Police or in the Inquest official documents. Quite simply that is inexplicable.

[Fleetwood Mac]

There was no guarantee the Police would buy his story. The thing is hearing the story through the grapevine and using it to gain notoriety cannot be disproved because AK man was never found. It can't be refuted but I find it an almost laughable suggestion that as the Inquest finished that day and stories began to circulate George Hutchinson sat and thought, I know- I will go to the Police and say I am the man who they say was loitering, I need a description of someone to be seen with Mary Kelly. I know- I will make up a well dressed man sporting some fine accessories. Then the Police might believe me and I will get a few shillings for my trouble when they ask me to look for him hopefully. It defies logic and stretches credibility to the limit or even beyond. He came up with all this within a few hours at most of any stories coming out.

There are a few, not outrageous possibilities:

1) George Hutchinson was there and Sarah Lewis had her time out. Whether or not Hutchinson had read Lewis's statement is irrelevant in this scenario.

2) George Hutchinson was not there and he had not read Sarah Lewis's statement. This scenario would explain why Hutchinson did not mention seeing Lewis nor the people Lewis saw.

3) George Hutchinson was there, he did see Sarah Lewis, he did see the people Sarah Lewis saw, and he had read Sarah Lewis's statement, and the whole point of him coming forward was to discredit Sarah Lewis's statement, in the main remove the 'respectably dressed man' from the spotlight.

4) George Hutchinson was not there and he was persuaded to come forward in order to discredit Sarah Lewis's statement, i.e. remove the 'respectably dressed man' from the spotlight. This necessitates someone had read Sarah Lewis's statement and was concerned.

My hunch, when looking at his statement including him offering nobody who could verify his presence in Dorset Street, is that number 2 is the most likely, i.e. he wasn't there, he hadn't read Sarah Lewis's statement, he wasn't Jack The Ripper, but he did see the potential to make a few bob.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wick and SD
In reply to your posts it doesn't matter if Sarah Lewis's story wasn't published much , if at all before Hutch came forward. As before, news of the murder would have spread through the district like wildfire. And stories told, be they fabrications, half truths or genuine honesty would have abounded the area.
All Sarah Lewis had to do was tell her best mate Mrs Smith who then told her neighbour Joe Bloggs etc that she saw a man standing outside Crossingham's who may have witnessed more than her. The same goes with Mrs Keyler relating Sarah's story, perhaps more so since she lived in the court.
George could easily have picked up on this.

Yes, I understand what you're saying Darryl. There is no shortage of possibilities to explain how Hutch may have learned the existence of Lewis's loiterer.
If that is what you want, then that is what you will believe.
Yet for a number of others, it is important to stick to the evidence, and let that suggest what occurred. We can all think up our own solutions, though the papers, especially The Star & The Echo were pretty good at picking up on local gossip. They both had their ears to the ground, yet we have nothing from Lewis until her inquest testimony. And there is nothing in the papers about some loiterer in Dorset St. that morning, not until the inquest.

He may have not have resided at The Victoria home regularly [ though I have to say I am not convinced by your argument in post 177 Wick ]...

I hope you'll excuse me if I don't believe you.

If you lived at the Vic., and were asked the same question he was, you would say, "because this place was closed".
I think you know you would, everybody would.
Only if you didn't live at the Vic. (on the night of the murder), would you say, "because my usual place was closed".
All of us on here have an adequate command of the English language. We all know right from wrong.

.......but, by his own admission he knew Mary and occasionally gave her a shilling. Which suggests to me he knew those streets and possibly other people in Millers Court itself.

But thats guesswork, right. I mean we have no indication he lived in the area for any length of time, do we?

He says he knew her for 3 years, did you know Kelly lived in Pennington st. 3 years previous?
She had a landlord (or neighbor?) Stephen Maywood, who owned stables in Romford.
Hutchinson, being a Groom, may have known Maywood, or even worked for him.
All I'm saying is Kelly & Hutch may have known each other years ago.

As for being paid five times his salary, again I am not convinced by your argument Wick,..

That's fine, but if police did not pay witnesses, and to date they never have. Then that fact alone pulls the rug out from under that idea.
At the time the police made it well known they would refused to pay Rewards, so why would they pay a witness?
The only payment a witness ever received was for expenses - every witness at the inquest was paid their expenses, though some complained they didn't get it.

What did Hutch have to lose he was unemployed and living day to day ?

Hell of a lot, at worst he could be charged with murder, at best as an accessory.
Regardless of any alibi for another murder.

[Sunny Delight]

There are a few, not outrageous possibilities:

1) George Hutchinson was there and Sarah Lewis had her time out. Whether or not Hutchinson had read Lewis's statement is irrelevant in this scenario.

2) George Hutchinson was not there and he had not read Sarah Lewis's statement. This scenario would explain why Hutchinson did not mention seeing Lewis nor the people Lewis saw.

3) George Hutchinson was there, he did see Sarah Lewis, he did see the people Sarah Lewis saw, and he had read Sarah Lewis's statement, and the whole point of him coming forward was to discredit Sarah Lewis's statement, in the main remove the 'respectably dressed man' from the spotlight.

4) George Hutchinson was not there and he was persuaded to come forward in order to discredit Sarah Lewis's statement, i.e. remove the 'respectably dressed man' from the spotlight. This necessitates someone had read Sarah Lewis's statement and was concerned.

My hunch, when looking at his statement including him offering nobody who could verify his presence in Dorset Street, is that number 2 is the most likely, i.e. he wasn't there, he hadn't read Sarah Lewis's statement, he wasn't Jack The Ripper, but he did see the potential to make a few bob.

I just can't see those possibilities as anything other than illogical. Not to say they can't be possible but they do not follow any logical path. I think we are covering the same ground so as I have said previously, for me the fact Hutchinson does not mention Lewis or the couple is not inexplicable. As I covered a few posts back. So for me the most likely scenario is:

- George Hutchinson returns from Romford and as he walks up Commercial Street meets a woman he knows as Mary Kelly. He has known her for about three years occasionally giving her a few shillings. She asks him for money. He doesn't have any. Seeing this AK man realises Kelly is propositoning and approaches her as a potential victim. Hutchinson gets a good look at the man and stands at Crossingham's after Kelly and AK man go to Miller's Court. He waits for 45 minutes. Then he gets bored and leaves walking around the rest of the night penniless.

Over the weekend he hears of Mary Kelly's murder. on the Sunday at Petticoat Lane market Hutchinson thinks he sees the man again but isn't sure. This prompts him to tell a fixed point Policeman about his experience but he doesn't go to the station. The next day he confides in a lodger- probably a friend on what he had seen. He seems conflicted. Afraid to get involved but knowing he has possible important information. The lodger advises him to go to the Police. This may be the encouragement Hutchinson needs- the nudge to get him over the line to do it. He goes to the Police and gives them his statement. Next day he gives the Press an almost identical statement.

To my mind Hutchinson when reciting his Police statement deals with Mary Kelly and the man he saw with her. Who he saw in the street after they had gone indoors is irrelevant. Hutchinson is concerned with relaying what he saw and how long Kelly was inside with the man which was at least 45 minutes or thereabouts. In his Press statement he again focuses on Kelly and AK man. I feel he is then prompted by questions from the Journalist he is talking too. His answers are relayed in the Press report as almost a continuous statement. I teased this out earlier but it was as follows hypothetically:

Pressman: Did you see any Police around?

Hutchinson: One policeman went by the Commercial-street end of Dorset-street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset Street.

Pressman: Did you see any other men around?

Hutchinson: I saw one man go into a lodging-house in Dorset-street, and no one else. I have been looking for the man all day.

All this seems the most sensible and logical scenario. It does not involve getting ourselves into knots. Sarah Lewis co-orborates Hutchinson. That much must surely be accepted if nothing else.

[Wickerman]

We have no evidence she was asked specifically about the man opposite the Court first.

Hi, this first line I don't understand, we have her police statement in writing.

Abberline took her statement, it is standard form that anyone interviewed gives their name, their address, and their occupation. All nine witness statements taken at Millers Court on 9th Nov. begin the same way - it's standard procedure.

The fact she didn't live in the court prompt's the next question, and that would be something like - what was your business in coming here?
The question is not written down, but once again, we can assess what the question was by the answer she gave.

So she states why she came to the court - that she had an argument with her husband, and she knew Mrs Keylar, so she came to stay the night.

That explains her presence, so Abberline now asks the all important question - what did you see?

Her reply is - When I came up the court there was a man standing over against the lodging-house on the opposite side in Dorset St., but I cannot describe him.

So there we have it, this observation is why she was interviewed, and as the coroner reads all the witness statements given to police. From these statements he decides which witnesses to summons to appear in court.
Notice here, Lewis makes no mention of seeing this man as she walks down Dorset St. He was possibly walking along just ahead of her, but this is not important, she didn't see him that is all we need to know.
She reached the court, and presumably paused to turn up the court. Only now does she notice a man standing outside Crossingham's lodging house, directly opposite Miller Court.

Her next comment concerns what she heard - Shortly before 4 o'clock I heard a scream like that of a young woman, and seemed to be not far away, she screamed out murder, I only heard it once. I did not look out the window. I did not know the deceased.

First, you likely notice she made no mention of seeing a couple.
Why? - because she was not asked.
We also read a succession of statements separated by punctuation, but begin with "I". Indicating she was likely responding to direct questions (I only heard it once, I did not look out the window, I did not know the deceased).

The police statement ends with:
Sarah Lewis further said that when in company with another female on Wednesday evening last at Bethnal Green, a suspicious man accosted her, he carried a black bag.

That's it, that is her first statement to police.
No mention of any couple in Dorset St. and no mention of passing anyone outside the Britannia.

She was called to testify at the inquest for two reason's;
1 - she saw a man standing opposite the crime scene.
2 - she heard the scream of murder.

Now, you have asked in previous posts, if Kennedy saw the same then why was she not called to testify also?

First point, a coroner will not call two witnesses to provide the same evidence - that is also standard procedure.
However, Kennedy did not see the man loitering in Dorset St., naturally, because Kennedy came along about 3:00am. The loiterer was leaving. However, she did hear the scream of murder. This will be why Lewis, seeing the loiterer, was called to testify and not Kennedy, who didn't.

Another point you raised - If Kennedy did see Kelly at 3:00 am, why was she not called to testify to that?
We do not know.
What we do know is Kennedy was interviewed by Abberline. Did you notice Lewis made no mention of seeing anyone outside the Britannia in her statement to Abberline?
It's quite possible Mrs Kennedy made the same omission, it was not part of her statement. So the police and the coroner never knew that Kennedy had seen Kelly outside the Britannia.

I wanted to reply to that first line of yours in detail because Lewis's police statement provides a number of clues to help us unravel her inquest testimony.

What happens at the inquest is, after the witness is sworn, the coroner reads this statement she gave to police. At this point he knows nothing about any people outside the Britannia, nor anything about other people in Dorset St.
All he knows is - she saw the man standing opposite, and she heard a scream of murder about 4 o'clock.

The coroner has her state her name, then her address, then her occupation - just like Abberline did.
Then he asks what her business was that morning, just the same as on her police statement.

Then, we read: "..When I went in the court I saw a man opposite the court...etc....etc.

This is why she was called, the first question asked is the same in both cases.
However, she is already at the court when she see's him. So now the coroner will ask questions concerning what she saw before she reached the court.
This is where she first speaks about the couple she saw ahead of her, and the people she passed outside the Britannia.

Her testimony is not a sequential story, she only responds to questions.
First, she is asked about seeing the loiterer at Millers Court.
Second, she is asked about seeing anyone else before she got to the court.
Third, she is asked about what happened after reaching the court - hearing the scream of murder, etc.
Fourth, she is asked what time did she leave the court.
Fifth, she is asked about any other strange men - she speaks about the Wednesday night experience.
Sixth, she finally tells the coroner about the man & woman she passed outside the Britannia (that he was the same as the Wednesday man).

I know you say it doesn't make sense, perhaps that is because you are not familiar with how a court functions?

Questions from a court do not follow a sequence, that is just a well known (I thought?) fact.
You can follow Lewis's inquest testimony and challenge me if the sequence I spelled out above is wrong.

Most of what I posted above is what I thought you knew, which is why I have been puzzled that you don't seem to agree with how her testimony actually describes what really happened.

[Wickerman]

..... I can only conclude that the newspaper reports saying a man and woman went up the Court are wrong.

Once you are aware of the true sequence of questions, I can't see how you could conclude the report is wrong?
There is just no basis for that view.

Any man entering Millers Court at that time with an unidentified woman would have been seen as absolutely critical evidence. Yet Lewis doesn't mention it to Police or in the Inquest official documents. Quite simply that is inexplicable.

Maybe because you already know about Hutchinson, and what he saw.

It is critical that we view all the inquest testimony without thinking about Hutchinson's story, they didn't know about that.

Mary Cox had just made Blotchy the leading suspect.

If there was a man loitering in Dorset St., he may have been an accomplice, but Lewis's description of him was meager and not helpful.

If you notice, once the coroner became aware of the suspicious man she met on Wednesday, he paid particular attention to Lewis, firing a lot of questions at her about this man.
(If you have The Ultimate Sourcebook, by Evans & Skinner, in the hardback we see Lewis's testimony on p.373. Every question she responded to is marked with a dash "--". The coroner asked many questions about this man)

The fact Lewis had seen a couple that she couldn't recognize (she didn't know Kelly) pass up the court ahead of her, was of no help because she said that by the time she came up the court, they had disappeared. She says "there was no-one in the court" - Daily Telegraph.

Naturally, whoever this couple were they must have gone inside one of the rooms.
Likely then, the coroner just thought that the couple lived in the court, so, move on to the next question.

[DJA]

Hutchinson was a sailor with a history of having the odd child living with him.

I have no doubt he was a paedophile hired by Jack the Ripper to keep an eye out for anyone that would thwart his plans.

That included Mary Ann Kelly waking up from a chloral hydrate induced sleep courtesy of Blotchy who left the door unlocked.

[Wickerman]

I just can't see those possibilities as anything other than illogical. Not to say they can't be possible but they do not follow any logical path. I think we are covering the same ground so as I have said previously, for me the fact Hutchinson does not mention Lewis or the couple is not inexplicable. As I covered a few posts back. So for me the most likely scenario is:

- George Hutchinson returns from Romford and as he walks up Commercial Street meets a woman he knows as Mary Kelly. He has known her for about three years occasionally giving her a few shillings. She asks him for money. He doesn't have any. Seeing this AK man realises Kelly is propositoning and approaches her as a potential victim. Hutchinson gets a good look at the man and stands at Crossingham's after Kelly and AK man go to Miller's Court. He waits for 45 minutes. Then he gets bored and leaves walking around the rest of the night penniless.

Over the weekend he hears of Mary Kelly's murder. on the Sunday at Petticoat Lane market Hutchinson thinks he sees the man again but isn't sure. This prompts him to tell a fixed point Policeman about his experience but he doesn't go to the station. The next day he confides in a lodger- probably a friend on what he had seen. He seems conflicted. Afraid to get involved but knowing he has possible important information. The lodger advises him to go to the Police. This may be the encouragement Hutchinson needs- the nudge to get him over the line to do it. He goes to the Police and gives them his statement. Next day he gives the Press an almost identical statement.

Absolutely, thee most straight forward and common sense interpretation.

....

All this seems the most sensible and logical scenario. It does not involve getting ourselves into knots. Sarah Lewis co-orborates Hutchinson. That much must surely be accepted if nothing else.

Yet, for many who have sold their soul's over the past few years to dismiss Hutchinson and/or his story, for a variety of reason's that is a tough pill to swallow.

It has long been believed that no-one saw what Hutchinson saw, yet Sarah Lewis has been hiding in plain sight all along.
We also see Bowyer going for water in the court at 3:00 am that same Friday morning. He saw the same man who is now (14 Nov.) identified as the murderer (by Hutchinson), and described the man to Abberline. As he doesn't mention seeing Kelly, this must be when Astrachan left Millers court.

[Sunny Delight]

Once you are aware of the true sequence of questions, I can't see how you could conclude the report is wrong?
There is just no basis for that view.



Maybe because you already know about Hutchinson, and what he saw.

It is critical that we view all the inquest testimony without thinking about Hutchinson's story, they didn't know about that.

Mary Cox had just made Blotchy the leading suspect.

If there was a man loitering in Dorset St., he may have been an accomplice, but Lewis's description of him was meager and not helpful.

If you notice, once the coroner became aware of the suspicious man she met on Wednesday, he paid particular attention to Lewis, firing a lot of questions at her about this man.
(If you have The Ultimate Sourcebook, by Evans & Skinner, in the hardback we see Lewis's testimony on p.373. Every question she responded to is marked with a dash "--". The coroner asked many questions about this man)

The fact Lewis had seen a couple that she couldn't recognize (she didn't know Kelly) pass up the court ahead of her, was of no help because she said that by the time she came up the court, they had disappeared. She says "there was no-one in the court" - Daily Telegraph.

Naturally, whoever this couple were they must have gone inside one of the rooms.
Likely then, the coroner just thought that the couple lived in the court, so, move on to the next question.

An unidentified female entering the Court with a man at 2:30am would be critical evidence. It could be Mary Kelly. It may not but it would be crucial to find that couple as promptly as possible and the Coroner would be anxious to try and glean any possible information about them. If you follow the answers Lewis gives though it becomes apparent that the Coroner is following the sequence of events. Did Lewis see anyone in Dorset Street? She saw a man loitering opposite the Court but only when she got as far as the Court. Was there anybody else around? Further on or passing by was a young man and a woman. To me newspaper reports stating the Couple passing up the court are conflating the couple 'passing by' and Hutchinson 'looking up the Court' as the Couple passing up the Court.

You can almost hear the Coroner's questions as you read Lewis answers.

Coroner- You state you were at Miller's Court on the night of the 12th?

Lewis- Yes, I know Mrs. Keyler, in Miller's-court, and went to her house at 2, Miller's-court, at 2.30a.m. on Friday.

Coroner- Which house does she occupy?

Lewis- She lives at No.2 in the court on the left on the first floor.

Coroner- How did you fix the time?

Lewis- I know the time by having looked at Spitalfields Church clock as I passed it.

Coroner- Did you see anyone in Dorset Street?

Lewis- When I went in the court I saw a man opposite the court in Dorset Street standing alone by the lodging house.

Coroner- Can you describe this man?

Lewis- He was not tall but stout and had on a black wideawake hat.

Coroner- How was this man dressed?

Lewis- I did not notice his clothes.

Coroner- Did you see anyone else in Dorset Street?

Lewis- A young man and a woman passed along or alternatively further on there was a man and a woman.

Coroner- What was the man opposite the Court doing?

Lewis- The man standing in the street was looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out.

Coroner- Was there anyone in the Court?

Lewis- No there was no one in the Court.

If the sequence is followed we can see that the man and woman have to be in relation to Lewis position at Miller's Court.

[Wickerman]

An unidentified female entering the Court with a man at 2:30am would be critical evidence. It could be Mary Kelly. It may not but it would be crucial to find that couple as promptly as possible and the Coroner would be anxious to try and glean any possible information about them.

The coroner has just heard evidence from Cox, who has suggested Mary was in her room by midnight, and still there at 1:00 am.
Followed by Prater who felt sure all was quiet in room 13, and no signs of light by 1:30.
Therefore, up to Lewis stepping up to testify, as far as the inquest knows, Mary is still in her room, and quite possibly dead by the time Lewis walks up the passage.

I can see why the inquest paid no attention to whomever this man & woman might have been. They had not been traced by police, so they had not submitted a statement to police identifying who they were.

If you follow the answers Lewis gives though it becomes apparent that the Coroner is following the sequence of events.

I still see no reason to suggest there was another couple further on past Millers Court. You know Hutchinson said there was no-one else around, which includes no 2nd man - with or without a woman. Just the couple he had been watching.

There was only one couple in Dorset St.

I accept your suggestions for a detailed questioning, but I still see the sequence of events I described as the best possibility for what occurred that night.

[Wickerman]

One other detail that may convey the mood of the court, which we cannot sense, is what the early evening newspaper The Star, wrote about the inquest.

While it is true the Star reporter left the court half-way through Prater giving evidence. What the Star published likely reflects the mood of the court at the point when he left.

THE MURDERER DESCRIBED.

Mary Ann Cox, a wretched looking specimen of East-end womanhood, said: I live at No. 5 room, Miller's-court. I am a widow, and having been unfortunate lately, I have had to get my living on the streets. I have known the deceased between eight and nine months. On Thursday night at a quarter to twelve I saw her very much intoxicated in Dorset-street. There was with her a short, stout man, shabbily dressed, who went with her up the court.

It's the title to the piece, not so much her testimony, we already know that. The title shows, to me at least, the mood in the court room was that Cox had seen the murderer.
And this was before Lewis gave her testimony. I think it suggests they all believed at that point, Kelly was already dead.